You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

I understand the argument made by supporters of the bill that those factors don't matter.

They argue that it doesn't matter how a person came into existence, the key fact is that there is a person.

Again it should be recognized that they believe the person comes into existence at conception.

For the sake of argument, assume they are correct.

How is this new person at fault for being created by rape or incest?

Why should they be killed due to actions of another?

They are innocent.

If one accepts the principle that someone can be killed because of the actions of another, where does that stop?

This, as I understand it, is their argument.

It raises reasonable questions, and I don't know the answer.

personally, I'm leaning towards agreeing with them. If it is a person, then yeah, I'm not sure that killing it is justified because of what it's parent(s) did.

If it's not a person, then that argument is by definition irrelevant.

So again, we're back to the real question.

When does a "person" first come into existence.

__________________I AM PATRIOTS

"Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick". Paraphrasing George S. Patton

I understand the argument made by supporters of the bill that those factors don't matter.

They argue that it doesn't matter how a person came into existence, the key fact is that there is a person.

Again it should be recognized that they believe the person comes into existence at conception.

For the sake of argument, assume they are correct.

How is this new person at fault for being created by rape or incest?

Why should they be killed due to actions of another?

They are innocent.

If one accepts the principle that someone can be killed because of the actions of another, where does that stop?

This, as I understand it, is their argument.

It raises reasonable questions, and I don't know the answer.

personally, I'm leaning towards agreeing with them. If it is a person, then yeah, I'm not sure that killing it is justified because of what it's parent(s) did.

If it's not a person, then that argument is by definition irrelevant.

So again, we're back to the real question.

When does a "person" first come into existence.

Your previous post and this one describe exactly how I view this issue.

As a Canadian I was raised in the extreme pro-choice rationality, with almost no exposure to the alternative. Once I got older and actually read a bit about both sides of the debate, I started thinking like you do in your posts.

Personhood is what matters here. The biggest problem with the abortion debate is that both sides argue past one another. One side believes personhood is at conception and therefore believe they are protecting human beings for every abortion they stop. The other side is iffy on the timing of personhood, which lets them prioritize the rights of mothers. Both sides misrepresent the opposing arguments, although in my experience the pro-choice side is much worse for this.

Personhood is what matters. If what's inside you isn't a person and just a collection of cells, then of course no one should care what you decide to do with it. If it is a person, then morally we should all care what happens to it.

Alabama shouldn't shock anyone after places like NY pushed the radicalization of pro-choice to an extreme.

I doubt things will ever get better, but the only way is if both sides begin talking about the moment a fetus becomes a person. The problem is that the pro-life side has a specific moment that isn't really up for debate (to them), while the pro-choice side has shown no ability to prioritize personhood or even reach a consensus on when it begins.

Your previous post and this one describe exactly how I view this issue.

As a Canadian I was raised in the extreme pro-choice rationality, with almost no exposure to the alternative. Once I got older and actually read a bit about both sides of the debate, I started thinking like you do in your posts.

Personhood is what matters here. The biggest problem with the abortion debate is that both sides argue past one another. One side believes personhood is at conception and therefore believe they are protecting human beings for every abortion they stop. The other side is iffy on the timing of personhood, which lets them prioritize the rights of mothers. Both sides misrepresent the opposing arguments, although in my experience the pro-choice side is much worse for this.

Personhood is what matters. If what's inside you isn't a person and just a collection of cells, then of course no one should care what you decide to do with it. If it is a person, then morally we should all care what happens to it.

Alabama shouldn't shock anyone after places like NY pushed the radicalization of pro-choice to an extreme.

I doubt things will ever get better, but the only way is if both sides begin talking about the moment a fetus becomes a person. The problem is that the pro-life side has a specific moment that isn't really up for debate (to them), while the pro-choice side has shown no ability to prioritize personhood or even reach a consensus on when it begins.

The problem here isn't about when it becomes a person or not, it's about womens rights, at least that is how they (pro-choicers) tell it. So how does one start a conversation with them when they don't want one?

Where did I advocate killing babies ? You absolutely suck at logic.
Keep defending Alabama. Thereís a reason why itís one of the worst states in the Union for education.

Itíll be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

based on what grounds? Libs (not calling you a Lib, I know you're not) like to pretend that abortion is a Constitutional right. It isn't. This is the type of thing that needs to be left as a states rights issue. A majority of people in Alabama elected a state legislature that passed this law. If you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else where people think like you.

The problem here isn't about when it becomes a person or not, it's about womens rights, at least that is how they (pro-choicers) tell it. So how does one start a conversation with them when they don't want one?

I don't disagree with you necessarily. What I mean is that the debate needs to shift to that perspective (personhood) rather than the 'right' to a medical procedure.

No one objects to the countless other elective medical procedures women (or men) seek out, because no one cares about controlling their bodies. It's a bullshit argument that is a strawman at best.

I would force pro-choice people to define what they're aborting at each stage of a pregnancy. IF they agree it's a child AND they still believe aborting it is moral/OK, then that's fucked and I suspect not a position that is widely held by 'moderate' (typical) Americans.

The pro-choice movement previously spent efforts on disassociating pregnancy from life. "It's not a baby, just a clump of cells" for precisely this reason. If a woman believe what's inside her is just cells, why wouldn't she feel she has a right to get rid of it? In that sense, it would be no different than a tumor.

I know for me my convictions were challenged when I read more about how formed babies are at different points of the pregnancy. And what the process of an abortion typically involves. That's what led me to believe the debate needs to shift to 'personhood' so we can define the rights of BOTH individuals, rather than this women-centric debate we have now.

And to be clear, I'm not sure where I stand these days. I'd say I'm more pro-life than I used to be, but my position is sketchy. At the very least I now admit that the issue is far more complex than what I was taught.

The true question is not should or should not abortions be allowed, but exactly when a "person" comes into existence.

Prior to that point the pro-abortion's position about a "woman's body" is perfectly logical.

After that point, it isn't, because there are now two people involved.

This law is based on the idea that that the moment of inception is when that "person" comes into existence.

If one accepts that, then abortion is murder, plain and simple.

Is that idea correct?

I don't know.

it is one of only three possible logical moments when that "person" comes into existence.

Conception

Birth

Some point in between

Personally I find #2 untenable.

I have a hard time thinking that 1 second before a full term birth, the "fetus" isn't a "person"

So IMHO, we're left with only two options.

As I said, I don't know the answer as to which answer is correct, or if it's #3 precisely when that transition occurs.

But that is the real question.

If someone can provide an argument as to when that second "person" comes into existence, I'm all ears.

some point in between

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Great post and I agree that issue is when it becomes an individual. I had what I think is a moment of clarity on the subject years ago.

A definition has 2 parts, the genus and differentia. What group it is like and what makes it different from that group. In this case a human is the defacto rational animal meaning with the faculty of a reasoning mind. The mind is the source of all rights as a human being therefore when there Is brain activity it then acquires all the rights of man with a few possible exceptions.

Up until that happens is is moral to abort for the same reason it is moral to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead.

Just my 2 cents toward a very emotionally charged issue.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk

an excellent point. when brain activity begins is a great time to call the fetus a human

but can that fetus survive, on its own outside of the womb?

on a side note, I hate that I can end my pets suffering but have to watch a human suffer. I really wish we could end some of that suffering.

[QUOTE=O.Z.O.;2590201]based on what grounds? Libs (not calling you a Lib, I know you're not) like to pretend that abortion is a Constitutional right. It isn't. This is the type of thing that needs to be left as a states rights issue. A majority of people in Alabama elected a state legislature that passed this law. If you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else where people think like you.[/QUOT

Agree with this. I felt the same way when people were calling for the national movement to impeach the Rep Omar from Mn. That was Mn business. This is Al business.

To me as a women itís viability My view isnít popular one amongst some women. So be it. Once again we as women shouldnít in this day and age need an abortion unless the women or fetus or later in pregnancy mother/baby is at risk. We have so many birth control options, or the morning after, weeks after, and an in rare events abortions. Iím not against abortion in the early or under certain conditions. I will freely admit, I also find it insulting and ridiculous that the father has zero say unless its for child support. I have sonís, a daughter, granddaughterís and grandsonís.... To me it should be a mutual decision Just my opinion, I honestly donít expect most women to agree but I would hope that most would listen.

To me as a women itís viability My view isnít popular one amongst some women. So be it. Once again we as women shouldnít in this day and age need an abortion unless the women or fetus or later in pregnancy mother/baby is at risk. We have so many birth control options, or the morning after, weeks after, and an in rare events abortions. Iím not against abortion in the early or under certain conditions. I will freely admit, I also find it insulting and ridiculous that the father has zero say unless its for child support. I have sonís, a daughter, granddaughterís and grandsonís.... To me it should be a mutual decision Just my opinion, I honestly donít expect most women to agree but I would hope that most would listen.

~Dee~

Per usual your points are very close to the voice of reason. Thank you Dee.

__________________

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

The whole rape and incest exclusion is the most minute number of cases.
I'm not expressing an opinion and I try to avoid posting this issue because it's basically zero sum warfare.
Florida statistics address reasons why an abortion was sought, they track it.,,

.001% were due to incest

.065% to protect the mother's life

.085% due to rape

.666% fetal abnormalities

98.6% were elective procedures for social or economic reasons

I can't do a link off my phone but it's easily verifiable info. And yes I know it's not Alabama but would wager it's not much different there or anywhere else.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.